Via Gabe Malor, whos already found the tastiest chestnuts in the opinion. The novelty here isnt the ruling itself but the court issuing it. Its the Ninth Circuit, which has jurisdiction over the west coast and typically leans left thanks to liberal all-stars like Stephen Reinhardt. (He wasnt part of the panel that heard this one, thankfully.) With todays ruling, the Ninth joins the Seventh in holding that the Second Amendment, just as it says, includes a right to bear arms. States can regulate that right but they cant ban it altogether. Three other federal appellate courts have ruled the other way, all but guaranteeing that SCOTUS will end up deciding this sooner rather than later. Memo to the Courts conservatives: Grant cert ASAP, please, before Obama gets another appointment.

The particular statute at issue here was San Diegos law banning concealed carry. The only way to get a permit there is to show a unique risk of harm. Wanting to carry a gun for self-defense without showing a special need isnt good enough. The Supreme Courts Heller ruling six years ago already guaranteed the right to possess a gun at home, so the question today was whether limiting carry to ones own household is a permissible state regulation of the right to bear arms or an impermissible outright prohibition. Given the text of the Amendment, says the Ninth Circuit, the answer is obvious:

If, as the Supremes found in Heller, the Second Amendment is ultimately a right of self-defense then its goofy to think that the right can be limited to ones own home. If anything, the ability to defend yourself is more urgent when youre not protected by four walls. A little more from the majoritys conclusion:

You can ban open carry or you can ban concealed carry but you cant ban carry entirely without completely depriving people of their right to bear.

Heres the opinion. A history lesson on Americas long jurisprudential tradition of defending the right to carry begins on page 23; brush up for the next time someone on the left insists that these activist conservative courts have gone rogue in defending gun rights. Big question now: Will this ruling survive? It was heard by a three-judge panel, as is custom for appellate cases. But the entire Ninth Circuit can request an en banc hearing of 11 judges, a majority of whom might be liberal, to reconsider it. Probably doesnt matter either way. This issue is headed to the Supreme Court no matter what the Ninth does.

Exit question: Wendy Open Carry Davis must be thrilled at the news, no?

The Abortion Barbie, Wendy Davis, is probably too busy dismembering babies to take time to castigate this ruling. She is NOT pro-gun, no matter WHAT she says. Nor is she pro-life, as she now asserts. She is simply trying to out-lie Hussein Obama!

I do notice that the seen to believe that police provide us protection and that “gun violence” is an issue........... Blah, blah, blah. They obviously don’t know a whole lot since other courts have already declared that the cops have NO responsibility to protect individuals. Period. They also apparently don’t know or don’t want to know that “gun violence” is declining even with the HUGE increase of private firearms ownership. All in all though I consider it a plus for pro 2a folks.

LOL! Just cause it’s in LARGE PRINT don’t improve their comprehension “skills”. Had to be something in the water. Was it a full panel review? Were all the judges represented in the decision/ruling that was handed down? If not, can “someone” appeal it and ask for the full panel to review the decision/ruling?

The catch is that Arms can be effectively eliminated through regulations. And the courts have ruled that the state has the right to Infringe on the right to bear arms by using regulations. Even though “Shall Not be Infringed” is pretty darn clear.

Later in the day the Ninth Circuit issued this clarification: "Oops!"/sRamirez's latest political cartoon LARGE VERSION 02/13/2014:LINKLINKto regular sized version of Ramirez's latest, and an archive of his political cartoons.In this political cartoon, Ramirez presents, "The ACA White House REVISED edition"

FOLKS, THOSE OF YOU WHO CAN, PLEASE CLICK HERE AND PENCIL IN YOUR DONATION TO HELP END THIS FREEPATHON. THANK YOU!We're over 54% now. Cool!...this is a general all purpose message, and should not be seen as targeting any individual I am responding to...

34
posted on 02/13/2014 3:12:51 PM PST
by DoughtyOne
(Immigration Reform is job NONE. It isn't even the leading issue with Hipanics. Enforce our laws.)

..where well-trained police forces provide personal security... TO THEMSELVES FIRST. The rest of us.....I guess we’ll receive it if and when they get around to us. Remember, ‘Protect and Serve’is just a motto.

Was pretty common in the 50s. We’d see long guns and pistols in holsters being carried and worn by high school kids leaving school or walking down a road on their way to a friendly ranch or a nearby canyon. This was in Monterey, California.

The only interest was from a friendly police officer who wanted to check out the various guns the kids had and remind them of gun safety, not to shoot toward the highway or cattle etc.

38
posted on 02/13/2014 3:18:34 PM PST
by Joan Kerrey
(The larger the government, the smaller the people)

Yep. It is amazing how the government and the legal “experts” come up with all of the crap laws that very certainly infringe on our Rights. Glad they had there reading glasses on when they reviewed this one.

I expect the Governor and AG of California to behave exactly as the Governor and AG of Maryland did when they were dealt the same hand by a Federal court ordering them to make some provision for concealed carry. They will simply say they will not abide by the ruling. A promise they kept, BTW.

On August 11, 1986, President Ronald Reagan nominated O’Scannlain to a seat on the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated by Judge Robert Boochever. O’Scannlain was confirmed by the Senate on September 25, 1986, and received his commission on September 26, 1986.

On February 12, 2003, Callahan was nominated by President George W. Bush to serve on the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Her Senate confirmation hearing was on May 7, 2003. On May 22, 2003, she was confirmed by a 99-0 vote.

Gonzalez, Irma Elsa

Nominated by George H.W. Bush on April 9, 1992, to a seat vacated by J. Lawrence Irving. Confirmed by the Senate on August 11, 1992, and received commission on August 12, 1992. Served as chief judge, 2005-2012. Assumed senior status on March 29, 2013. Service terminated on October 25, 2013, due to retirement.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.